SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

131/- which was reduced to Rs. 1,14,80,575/- by Ld. CIT(A) and Rs. 3,00,00,000/-in respect of advance received from M/s Easyway 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A), confirmed the action of the learned Assessing officer on principals, reduced the N.P rate from 12% to 8% placing reliance upon ITAT, Agra Bench order

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

131, the onus is on the assessee to show the real transactions. I.T.A No. 212/Agra/2018 10 Since assessee could not explain the nature and source of cash deposits in the account, AO is correct in law treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Hence addition

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

131(1)(d) to the enquiry by learned ITO Ward-3(3), Bulandshahr dated 01.03.2016 along with the Annexures viz., (a) Enquiry report of Income Tax Inspector dated 23.02.2016, (b) Confirmed copy of ledger account of the appellant in the books of M/s Prashant Dairy and (c) Copy of Bank Statement of M/s Prashant Dairy explain the genuineness

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "147", "148", "40A(2B)", "68", "115BBE", "131", "133(6)", "148A(d)" ], "issues": "Whether the Principal

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

3. CIT VsKamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. Delhi High Court 4. M/s Kays jewels Private Ltd. Vs Union of India And Anr. Writ Tax No. 721 of 2015 – Allahabad High Court (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) CIT VsShriShyam Sunder Infrastructure, ITA 236/2014 – Delhi 5. High Court 6. M/s Crown Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Writ Petition

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

3, pertaining to validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act based on reasons recorded and therefore, if such grounds do not find favour with the view held by the Bench in such an eventually the case will be (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) re-fixed for hearing in respect of other grounds raised in the memo of appeal

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.149/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Bipin Babu Agarwal Dcit / Acit बनाम/ 16, Kamla Vihar Colony Central Circle Vs. Masani, Mathura 281 001 Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpa-0864-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. M. Agrawal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-09-2021. Having Heard Vehement Arguments Of Both The Sides & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. During The Year, The Assessee Being Resident Individual Carried Out Business Activities In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Parshant Silver Handicrafts. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized Pursuant To Search Action On R.S. Bullion & Jewellers Group Of Cases At Mathura

131(1A) on 15-11-2018. He stated that the same was sale proceeds of cash sales of bullion. It was noted by Ld. AO that M/s Prashant Silver handicraft made cash sale of Rs.626.28 Lacs on single day selling about 1611.783 Kg of silver. The Ld. AO held that the sales bills were bogus and mere after-thought

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S. UNITED FARM PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

131 ITR 597 (SC) - Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)-II v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 TAXMAN 476 (DELHI) - Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in case of Ashwini Kumar v. ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) - The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002J

AMBRISH SARIN,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145(3) of the Act, pointing out discrepancies regarding details of sundry creditors and unsecured loan even though the case was selected for limited scrutiny where we find inconsistency in the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) on the identical fact covered by the CBDT instruction on limited scrutiny (APB, Pg. 2-3) and his order referred

SMT. PRIYA ARORA W/O SH. SARVESH ARORA,SHIVPURI vs. I.T.O., SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of IT Act. 6. The above all addition as made by A.O of 12,000 + 8,00,000/- totaling Rs.8,12,000/- in the declared income of your appellant & confirmed the same by Ld. CIT (A) is I.T.A No. 347/Agra/2016 3 bad in law as well as on facts of the case. Kindly delete the entire addition

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the I.T. Act of aggregate cash deposit of Rs. 12,97,291/- (3,30,471 + 9,66,820) in Union Bank of India SB A/c No. 2969 as it is a settled law that Bank Pass Book is not Books of Accounts hence the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), is wrong, illegal and against the peculiar

M/S SURAJHBAN OILS PVT.LTD,MORENA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL CIRCLE), GWALIOR

Appeals is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 45/Agr./2022 (Assessment Year 2017-18)

Section 68 unexplained cash credit additions of Rs.80.60 lacs in the assessee’s hands, in the course of assessment framed on 28.12.2019 and upheld by the CIT(A) as under: “4.1 Ground Nos. 1 and 2:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 80,60,000/- on account

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from his father and sister who were non-residents in India - Assessing Officer after making detailed enquiries, took a view that assessee had duly proved identity, source and creditworthiness of donors - Commissioner

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

131 DTR 344, have also held so relying on the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra).” 6. Further the ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case, written submissions filed by the ld. AR confirmed the addition made on account of income from other sources by observing vide para 5.2 of the impugned order

SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SARASWAT,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 SOT 197 (Delhi -Trib) c) Amrik Singh vs. ITO reported as (2016) 159 ITD 329 (Amritsar -Trib) referred and relied upon before him on the issue. 4. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has erred in not appreciating that no addition was made by the 'AO' under section 68/69 towards deposits in saving bank account, which was the sole reason

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

3), Agra” 9. Per contra, the learned D.RShriWaseemArshad, at the outset objected to the submissions made by the learnedA.R and stated that since assessee had not challenged the validity of notice under section (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) 148 of the Act before the authorities below therefore, it cannot be allowed to raise this objection at this belated stage